Among the things Sweden is most known for is its longstanding policy of neutrality and non-alignment in armed conflict. It is a policy that officially lasted from the end of the Napoleonic Wars until its accession into NATO in 2024, and which successfully guided the nation through some of the most all-encompassing geopolitical conflicts the world had seen. Yet with armed neutrality came an added, and somewhat unseen benefit: near limitless access to global markets for a booming arms industry. This comes despite Sweden being widely regarded as one of the most peaceful countries in the world – so how can we make sense of Sweden’s arms exports, and what can it tell us about the country today?
Small-scale arms manufacturing in Sweden had been prominent since its height as a military power during the 1600s, focused mainly on muskets and cannons. It was only in the 1900s that manufacturing expanded, largely due to a mix of industrial growth and the persistent threat of invasion, both before and during the Cold War. An independent arms industry was crucial to establishing an expansive total defence policy, and soon enough, famous Swedish companies such as Bofors and SAAB began producing everything from aeroplanes to ships, as well as artillery and radar systems.
Today, Sweden ranks among the top arms exporters per capita globally due to its independent arms production, with weapons exports reaching their highest recorded value of 29 billion SEK in 2024. At the same time, it still maintains an extensive humanitarian foreign policy and a pacifist reputation. Sweden’s humanitarian and developmental aid strategy is carried out by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). It amounts to billions of SEK annually, with developmental aid coordinated through various international actors such as the UN and the Red Cross. Thus, it might seem paradoxical to hold these positions simultaneously at first glance, but the export of weapons is partially restricted through an export control framework that outlines criteria for recipients. Most notably, this framework requires that recipients not violate Sweden’s obligations under international law and human rights. This framework is enforced by the Inspectorate of Strategic Products (ISP), an agency whose mission is to control the exports of military equipment and dual-use items for civilian and military purposes.
Despite the expressed effort to control the export of military equipment, trouble still finds a way to show itself. From 2011 to 2013, as per ISP statistics, among the top recipients of military equipment were Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Thailand, Pakistan, and India: countries which have all been implicated in conflicts with striking civilian death tolls. While the majority of recipients are close allies of Sweden and fellow EU Member States, a loophole in the export control framework allows countries to receive ‘supplementary purchases’ of weapons under older orders, bypassing newer legislation that prohibits the sale of munitions.
It is this loophole that has allowed Sweden to deepen its relationships with Middle Eastern countries over the past ten years. An investigation in 2012 revealed plans to build a munitions factory in the Saudi Arabian desert, with talks being facilitated by the ISP, displaying a clear breach of the agency’s authority. Ties with the UAE have also been increasing, with trade ‘booming’ and SAAB contributing to a large number of sales towards the Emirates. While these sales are problematic in and of themselves as human rights violations persist in both the UAE and Saudi Arabia, Swedish sales can also be linked to the war crimes perpetrated in Yemen and, more recently, Sudan – a case that Swedish foreign minister Maria Malmer Stenergard has denied.
Two more of Sweden’s biggest trade partners when it comes to munitions are India and Pakistan, and Sweden provides weapons to both countries despite long-running tensions. Even today, border conflicts between the two nations flare up and claim the lives of civilians. A similar story can be seen when examining Thailand. As weapons sales continue and SAAB is set to supply a large-scale order of jets worth well over 5 billion SEK, tensions run high between Thailand and Cambodia – often resulting in violent clashes, catching civilians in the crossfire.
And in the end, one common denominator can be traced back to all of the aforementioned conflicts: Sweden, a country that has consistently supplied munitions to countries that are complicit in human rights violations.
As for what to expect in the future, it remains unclear as government policies are pointing in conflicting directions. As early as 2010, the Swedish government proposed creating an agency with the explicit aim of promoting the export of weapons. The creation of this agency would, however, face backlash from various organisations and the wider public, ultimately resulting in its termination. As of 2024, two of the four parties forming the current Swedish government are in favour of relaunching the sale of weapons to Israel, which Sweden has not done since the 1950s. Additionally, the Swedish government’s latest defence strategy points towards larger investments in its defence industry as the government aims to ‘strengthen the Swedish defence sector by increasing its access to other markets’ and satisfy national demand. And despite this, export control laws were tightened by the government in 2025 to include dual-use items not already regulated by the EU.
All of this comes as Sweden prepares their largest cuts to SIDA. Similarly, developmental aid to Yemen is being completely phased out, and the revenue gained from arms exports towards the UAE overshadows the cost of humanitarian aid towards Sudan. When taken into account, the current dilemma Sweden finds itself in ultimately begs the question: are Sweden’s humanitarian priorities starting to shift?
By Andreas Gruia
Februrary 11, 2026
